In his latest essay, our Israeli correspondent MC discusses the Judeo-Christian concept of Truth, comparing and contrasting it with the Lie promulgated by Islam and Marxism.
If you like your truth, you can keep it…
by MC
From City Journal:
Madison wrote in 1800 that it is to free speech and a free press, despite all their abuses, that “the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression.” Only out of freewheeling discussion, the unbridled clash of opinion and assertion—including false, disagreeable, and unpopular opinions, Madison believed no less than Mill—can truth ultimately emerge.
Freedom has three fulcrums of rotation: good government, a free press, and reasonable literacy. If any one of those pivot points breaks down, then the apparatus of freedom begins to crumble.
In this day and age all three are under attack, but the free press node is now dysfunctional. The media are now bound and enslaved to a particular polemic and are incapable of self-correction. The cause lies in the innate polarity imparted by modern (socialist) education.
Most people under fifty have never experienced any meme which does not harp upon the tenets of the cultural Marxist religion. Thus to step out from under the red umbrella of fixed ideas into the hailstorm of free thought is just not a feasible option to most people; it is incomprehensible — and very threatening.
I am a racist. I am a racist because I judge people, not by skin colour, but by their actions, and by the extent to which I feel threatened or comfortable with them. Diversity is truly fascinating as long as my wellbeing is not threatened.
I embrace my racism because the cultural Marxists have made it a rite of their religious devotion, and I hate Marxism in all its forms. Otherwise racism would be of no consequence to me, or to anybody else. Little things please little minds. It is very important to cultural Marxists that they should be able to point a finger: to accuse; to condemn the infidel. Racism is a superb verbal hammer with which to beat people into ‘their’ shape. The Marxist definition of racism is multi-dimensional and many faceted, and very difficult to counter. It is easier for me to accept that by Marxist definition I — and just about everybody else with a white skin — am a racist. No matter what I do, will always be a racist.
The idea of racism is actually inconsequential. Before the Holocaust it had no real meaning in the English language. It is an idea that was first established by Nazi propaganda, but only in German. However, its translation into English lies to the credit (or otherwise) of the left, who adopted the fascist idea of ‘racism’ as a politico-religious bulldozer, harping always upon its links to Nazi atrocities whilst ignoring the gross racism of the leftist Holodomor and the purges of Jews in the “Doctors’ Plot”.
Racism is a natural human process, whereby one mixes freely in one’s own cultural group, but is wary in the company of strangers. It has nothing to do with skin colour, and everything to do with polite behaviour. The stranger in the community is obliged to behave politely in the community into which he/she enters voluntarily, especially if said person wishes to become part of that community.
Slaves, too, must eventually adapt, or, on obtaining freedom, return to a community to which they do not feel hostile. Feelings of hostility, whether justified or not, cannot be tolerated within the community without creating instability and resulting in the weakening and the eventual demise of the said community. But this is, of course, the desired outcome for adherents of the Marxist religions.
By submitting to the creed and diktats of racism, we render our community obsolete, and enter into a spiral of increasing submission to an irrelevant abstraction with religious overtones. A free press should be informing us of the subversive nature of the creed of racism. It should be constantly correcting the inconsistent uses of the charge of racism made by religious adherents of the religions of Marxism. An adequate education system would be isolating Marxism because of its historical brutality, instead of evangelizing its gospel of divisiveness and mayhem.
So too with the evils of Islam. It too has a history of mayhem and murder, of intolerance and bestiality, all neatly hidden behind a smile and a lie. A free press would expose the smile as an evil grin, and demonstrate the untruths to be a deceitful façade. But that never happens. And the education system polishes the image to render it beyond the questioning of the curious. Islam has two faces, the Mecca face of peace, and the Medina face of violence. Like the god Janus, the one face is as an innocuous gatekeeper, but unwittingly enter the gate, and it is the hell prison of Bifrons that one enters.
…in demonology Bifrons was a demon, Earl of Hell with six legions of demons (twenty-six for other authors) under his command. He teaches sciences and arts, the virtues of the gems and woods, herbs, and changes corpses from their original grave into other places, sometimes putting magick lights on the graves that seem candles. He appears as a monster, but then changes his shape into that of a man.
The origin of the name is, without any doubt, the Roman god Bifrons (Janus).”
Islam is a snare, a trap for the unwary. Muslims are very quick to show the Mecca mask, the face of the “Religion of Peace” but that is koranically abrogated by its ugly Medina mug. The Medina face is the face of slavery, torture and death to apostates and unbelievers. Moderates are those who show the face of Mecca. The fanatics are more honest — they show the face of Medina, but they are both the faces of Janus, faces made to deceive, and deceit is at the very heart of Islam.
It is Medina that should be taught in schools, but no, it is the Mecca deceit that most people assimilate, and then wonder what they did wrong. They did nothing wrong, but they have been betrayed in the worst possible way.
Truth is a curious and elusive thing. Free speech leaves me free to tell the truth, but also to tell lies, and it is in the discerning of lies that education is pivotal. The free press is free to tell both truth and lies; it is up to me to parse the lies from the truths, and to take responsibility for that process in my life. If I get it wrong, then I apologise, but not for the lie (unless it is of my own making), but for getting it wrong.
As an adherent of Judeo-Christianity, I have an obligation to seek out truth and expose lies. As Eve confessed, “I was deceived by the serpent,” whilst Adam accused, “She did it, the woman that You gave me.” To those who leave Judeo-Christianity behind, and adopt a religion of moral relativity, then truth becomes whatever they want it to be.
Marx and Mohammed both abandoned truth as inessential to their cause, in so doing they institutionalized lying, mainly because the ends justify the means. Yahovah has no civic objective. He therefore has no ends that He needs to justify, so truth is as He created it. His objective is that I personally (along with everybody else) should seek and understand His truths. It is not by ‘works of (self) righteousness’ that I am justified; so He, and I, have nothing to prove by lying.
If I adopt Marxism or Islam, I then have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of my fellow men that I am a good disciple, for it is they who judge me in the here and now. If I deviate, I die. I am therefore no longer enabled to parse the truth from the lie. How do I demonstrate my fidelity? I kill, torture, violate and defame; I call people ‘racist’ or ‘kuffar’, and if conditions are right, I strike at their necks with a sword or rope. That I am living a lie is of no consequence. The Utopia to which my lies entitle me is enough.
Unfortunately, even if I am the best of disciples, I have no guarantee that this Utopia is not also a lie. Be it ‘equality and social justice’ (with a little bit more of each for me as a reward for my own lies), or more virgins and catamites and wine than I can handle. Each of these can be a delusion, because neither Marx nor Mohammed esteemed truth as of any consequence. But “Yahovah is not a man that He should lie.” (Numbers 23 v 19).
What do we do to restore our freedom of speech? We tell the truth to the best of our ability and likewise expose the lies and deceits. Truth has an uncanny ability to come to the forefront. It is after all the distillation of creation, and whoever or whatever is responsible for creation at the same time defined truth, because truth and creation are the same thing.
Only through freedom of speech can the truth be voiced, which is why those who want us to believe their lies hate free speech.
Free speech is our only safeguard against tyranny, and suppression of free speech is the prime object of all tyrants.
If you like your truth, you can keep it…
As Bill Moyers said:
A free press is one where it’s okay to state the conclusion you’re led to by the evidence. One reason I’m in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn’t play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats & Republicans, liberals & conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.
MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.
The term “racist” is now just a synonym for reactionary or counter-revolutionary. That is, anything that opposes Marxism. It no longer has anything at all to do with race.
I am anti-Marxist which means that I will get called “racist” by neo-Marxists because they know that terms like “reactionary” or “counter-revolutionary” will just get laughed at. Similarly, Muslims will call anyone who is anti-Islam a “racist” becaus they know that terms like “kafir” will just get laughed at as well.
A good article! “In the age of deceit the telling of Truth becomes revolutionary.” – George Orwell.
and the Truth shall set you free, of all the lies, myths and deceptions that chain you. MC and I both know Who the Truth is and I will leave it at that.
BTW, What Nimrod and MC refer to is called “projection” in logic, which is the act of the person projecting themselves upon you so that you are now the scoundrel that they in fact are, and they are the good responsible person that you are. When called on this behavior, the projector’s response is what is often referred to as a “cop-out.”
Very Clever. But I always prefer Dr. Bill Warner’s simpler take on such things, “Islerm is baad”.
Instinctively, without resort to the wisdom of a higher authority, complicated analysis of Judeo / Christian cultural heritage or comparative criticism of sociological systems – Islam really is bad.
But most people believe that Islam is a religion of peace, I was told the other day that salaam and shalom mean the same thing, I disagreed, and explained to the European that Salaam means submission, and Shalom is the peace of Yahovah which passes understanding. But he knew best because he had seen it on TV…….
It’s very sad how much more authoritative someone on TV appears to the average person than someone else they’re talking to in person even when that person has specific knowledge of an issue.
MC You’re right. Its just frustrating that it takes such intellectual endeavours as yours to point out the obvious.
We all see the evidence before us all, almost ceaselessly – the regressive behaviour of the followers of Islam, the misery they cause, the multifaceted “wrongness” of their societies.
Yet – our leaders decide that to keep the peace they need to lie about the true nature of Islam. This is completely the wrong tactic. You cannot appease a bully, and you can only fix a problem by identifying and acknowledging it.
As there were no moderate Nazi’s there are no moderate Muslims – just moderate people that go along with the dictates of a totalitarian governance because it is personally beneficial.
Lissan-al-Arab Dictionary: Islam is derived from the root verb ‘istlama’-to submit; give-in; surender. But this does not just mean for the individual, it means for the entire community.
This letter is from Mohammad to Heraclitus, Emporor of Byzantium:
“Now then, I invite you to Islam (surrender). Embrace Islam and you will be safe”. –Sahih Bakhari 4:52:191
The above is from a University of Southern California study of Islam, done in cooperation with the Muslim Students Union.
Here in the UK, the term Racist is used when the speaker cannot think of a reasoned comment. I remember reading – probably on GoV the following : during the filming of Planet of the Apes, the cast found it inconvenient to take off their costumes when they sat down for lunch. So when they did sit down for lunch – all the gorillas sat together, all the Orangs sat together and all the chimps sat together. Hmmm …….
Sean Bean talks about the same thing in the making of the Sharpe series; the ‘French’ would sit together, the sergeants would sit together and the officers would sit together……
Did that really happen?
Eleven years ago while driving in Derbyshire, England, quite near Chatsworth, my wife yelled:
“Stop the car!” I did, and she pointed at a paddock on the hillside where there were a number of sheep, but unusually three different breeds—they were not mingling, but were in three separate groups, which prompted her to say in her native Norwegian:
“Se, like barn leker best!” (like children play best) Followed in English with:
“Even the sheep are racist!”
And similar children do indeed play best. So, I’m racist too.
As an adherent of Judeo-Christianity, you also place your belief system above objective truth, i.e. you consider them one and the same. Your truth-seeking ends where it would touch and possibly shake the very core of your faith. But let’s not be nitpicky. The call to retain our right to free speech cannot be repeated often and urgently enough in these times, thank you very much for that. We learned to live with differences and to discuss them in a civilised manner, and we’re about to lose it all again to savagery.
Truth is self evident to those who observe. Faith in a belief system is exactly that, faith, which is not observable and has nothing to do with Truth.
Truth isn’t always self-evident by observation: for eample see the Monty Hall problem, the proof of the Four Colour Theorem, and results from Quantum Mechanics.
Wanting religion to be true does not make it so – I dispute that you’re a better ‘observer’ than I am, and I am unconvinced of the existence of any gods.
If a sufficiently powerful-looking being flapped, slithered, or floated up to me an asserted “I am God”, I’d still be unconvinced. “Prove it mate”, I’d say. “Sure, you can squish me like a bug, but so can a falling rock. What else can you do?”
Thus burning bushes, etc etc would also leave me cold, as it were. People in the far past were more easily flim-flammed by sheer preposterous lies, it seems, hence the slew of nonsensical books from those periods.
These days we need more subtle flim-flam, at least in non-muslim lands.
Oddly, as an aside, gods appear to be singularly inept at either proving that they exist, or indeed, do anything useful.
Perhaps toto-ineptitude is the very signature super-power of a god 🙂
What do puzzles or to be more precise, theories, have to do with something that on observation is self evidently true?
Faith in a person’s religion has nothing to do with whether the belief is True – that is why religion is a belief system that can never be a Truth because the Truth of the religion is not self-evident to the detached observer. Black = black, white = white. That is self-evident, even to the color blind, and a therefore a Truth. That black can be white and vice versa is a matter of faith, or delusion.
Mark Twain once quipped that there are two great events in everyone’s life. The first is to be born into this world, and the second is to find out why they were born. Many do not bother finding out why they were born and treat their life as a random thing, almost like a lottery win rather than acknowledging that their life has a meaning, and to be here in this world is for a purpose which is up to them to find out what that purpose is.
That God exists is I believe a self-evident Truth – for anyone who looks around at this world and considers the many intricacies of life itself – cannot fail to realize that life in this world is not random, but can only be through divine design. God was not invented by primitive men too afraid to leave their caves. God is in all of us, and that recognition would go a long way to solving the many ills of this world.
Now that kind of thinking has nothing to do with religion, which is a man made construct based largely on faith – but an acknowledgement that there is a higher authority than Mankind that we are all answerable to upon the death of our bodies.
There is much Truth in the Bible – that is why archeologists use the Bible as a reference source on where to dig – but whether the Bible is the complete Truth, I do doubt that very much.
This guy also puts his belief system above objective truth, , especially as he does ot acknowledge that he has one. there is mythology at the root of atheism as well, it is as difficult to prove/believe that there os no god as to prove/believe that there is a god. If you look at the venom dished out to advocates of ID, you get to understand the wobbly nature of atheism. Simply put, the math of a plethora of atheist theory does not work, and this has been admitted by honest atheists for at least a century. So atheists have to hope for a miracle…..
The problem is that atheists run into the same epistemological problem described here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
The problem is also the definition of “God”. For example you seem to be defining God similar to the Masonic idea of a transcendent great architect.
If I define God as objective reality itself then the existence of my definition of God is a bit more difficult to argue with without resorting to radical subjectivism (which some number of atheists apparently do). One might argue with the usefulness of personifying reality itself, but the success of empiricism provides overwhelming justification for the existence of objective reality. As for the utility of personifying objective reality, that would require a scientific study in the areas of psychology and sociology, and at this point humans are too politically biased to conduct such a thing objectively. So I probably wouldn’t trust the results regardless of what they were.
Atheists like to accuse theists of being “anti-science”, but atheism founded on radical subjectivism would be radically anti-science since science, which relies on empiricism, would be useless without a single shared objective physical reality. Or rather it would be severely restricted in its usefulness as any empirical discovery made by one person would be useless for others.
Nimrod, I have really no idea of what or who God is, only that there is a divine design throughout this world that just cannot be ignored when one really pays attention to life and to how it is organized.
Some would say life was chaotic, but there is an order that one can observe.
I believe it was Voltaire who stated, “Life is but an illusion.” And on that I would have to agree with that hypothesis because when one takes time to appreciate the many phenomena that manifests itself, some randomly and some not so random, and that have been recorded by sincere observers throughout our current recorded history, then religion with all its dumbing down dogma just doesn’t cut it.
The Bible is full of such phenomena, one only needs to seek it out to realize that the world we experience as a human animal is apart and completely separated from our true selves, our soul is our true being, while our bodies are just cloaks for us to experience life in this world.
I believe those who profess to decline the existence of God deep down know this is wrong. To acknowledge the existence of a divine design for this world would then cause them to limit their personal behaviour to that of moderation, which must be through necessity to learn while we are here. Too many give into the animal urges that has now become so common place and fail to learn.
I don’t mean that everyone should live their life in complete piety, but in moderation. Everything we partake of should apply as to the ‘golden rule’ with the emphasis being on controlling our urges.
The human race is very ancient, far more ancient than what is currently accepted and our history is vast and full of the rise and fall of many civilizations that have yet to be ‘unearthed’, that is if the current closed minded thinking can be overcome.
I also do not believe our species is native to this planet, that our ancestors came from other far off planets that we are now just beginning to learn about – that is, those who wish to know.
Racism…It’s also a powefull charge. Even when made by an intellectually destitute person. And raceism is cloudy, calling on the responder to addtress a vague issue; not what the topic at hand is.
I’ve watched CNN debates on this subject. The conversation gets shifted away from the shows original issue which was supposed to be ‘migration’. It’s a propaganda technique. (let’s all look over there, not here)
A good counter argument would be to agree with your accuser, then tell your accuser that all humans have the ability to be racist as a form of discrimination which is a natural trait. Then tell your accuser that when governments outlaw one’s natural ability to discriminate then there is no longer any choice in what one may do that can be counter to what the government says one can do.
That then is Fascism and we are all suffering under the yoke of it throughout the West. And to think, that the last century was a century of wars against such Authoritarianism!
You are most easily a student of Islamic Truth if you have to rush from the toilet and collect your three youglings and hurl yourself into the bombshelter all in fifteen seconds, when you live in Sderot.
Oh yes, and if you have two out there which one do you pick up first?
Truth? Facts.
But Truth may be uttered without the Facts to support it!
Yes, but will it be an objective truth?
Truth has been deconstructed hasn’t it? Along with reason and reality. That’s why the West is in the mess it’s in. We need something more concrete that truth to dig us out – fact is the tool of choice.
Well yes, one could say that Truth has been deconstructed – but that would only apply to those who do not wish to leave the box they have been raised up in.
The West is in its current state because of politics and a lack of spine and conviction from the ‘conservative’ side of politics to fight for those who actually elected them, preferring instead to the Globalists bidding. And Truth has been thrown into the cupboard by the fourth estate in its desire to maintain its license to lie to those who feed off the ‘news’ and other entertainments.
Facts are facts to those who seek them as a proof of a thing, such as the actions of a criminal charged with a felony, but the Truth of the criminality will only come out in court, and so it is that only Truth will set you free from the collectives MC/PC chains.
Watch Trump’s campaign and see how the media are trying every gotcha question to entrap him so as to ridicule him to the point he then becomes irrelevant. Trump is a maverick, and is not dancing to the media tunes. His speeches are drawing more and more people while his rating climbs and continues to climb while his PC opposition stagnates.
Trumps campaign is setting a new standard for politics -which has always been a circus – he utters things others are to PC to go near and the people love it!
But does he speak the Truth, probably not, but in a political circus Truth becomes a second player to personal convictions and public entertainment.
Hi Nemesis – this is a reply to the point below – couldn’t find the reply button below your comment:
As Ronald Reagan said, “Facts are a troublesome thing.”
Facts are facts, the truth is a function of him that speaks it.
manatthepub. Got a couple of pints of best bitter lined up mate? Facts can be troublesome things to some people, but facts are generally part of the whole Truth and can never replace the axiom as an observable reality.
“The stranger in the community is obliged to behave politely in the community into which he/she enters voluntarily, especially if said person wishes to become part of that community.”
This is exactly what is NOT happening in America now. Previous waves of immigrants did comply with the obligation to behave politely precisely because they wanted to join the community. It was called assimilation. And it worked, spectacularly well. It was also natural. Which is to say it did not have to be taught. It was ingrained behavior. When you enter another man’s house you show deference for his rules. And over time, if you want to become part of the family, his rules become your rules.
The present effrontery that immigrants display, the willful denial of respect for the house they are entering is maddening not only because it is rude but because this unnatural rudeness had to be cultivated and in fact has been intensely cultivated by the American Left.
President Theodore Roosevelt made a great speech on what makes an American, or an Australian, a Briton, Canadian or New Zealander for that matter. I don’t have a link to it from here, but please look it up on the web.
“Racism” is about skin color and ethnic genetic interests, as well as polite behavior. There’s nothing wrong with admiring white physical beauty or wanting to preserve race. If non-whites behaved politely I still wouldn’t want them to dispossess and replace white people.
It is a natural human trait to gravitate toward your own kind. There is no sin in that, and it has nothing to do with that over -done euphemism, ‘Racist’.
I think you meant “epithet”, Nemesis, when you refer to the over-done name calling. My respect for those who try to climb out of the ghetto of death and dead-end jobs died when I was wandering the University of Virginia grounds one afternoon, many years ago. All the hard work of their parents to ‘make’ it, to send them to college, and those racists lost my sympathy and any desire to help black students when I saw a “blacks-only” fraternity. Later, when I joined the Episcopal Church to discover there were black-only congregations and that the diocese was holding one racism workshop after another so whites could stand up and confess (blacks never had to discuss the times they called us “whitey”), I lost my enthusiasm for my new church home. We need a new tune and a new vision. Without a vision, the people perish and we’re doing exactly that. The best you can do now is find “little pockets of resistance”.
Yes – epithet it should have been! We could all live together, no matter what the color, but only as long as we all have the one rallying point – a common denominator and ideal to links us all together such as the American Constitution. Those Western countries that imported the various ethnicities during the early to mid – 20th Century nearly achieved that goal through assimilation – a single nation of one tribe but of many colors. Multi-ethnic with achievable goals, rather than the fascist multi-cultural with its deliberate and destructive policy of diversity is strength along with all those other nation destroying policies that have torn asunder all the good that we were clearly achieving.
Perhaps we can all live together – but if we can it will be in an ‘ideal’ world. Aut the world isn’t ideal. Different peoples have different views of how the world is and naturally seek to shape their world according to those views. Hence conflict.
Yes that is True! But no country can be ideal, especially when politics is at the forefront of all ‘democracies’, as politics divides a population. And when assimilation is enforced as a right of passage to become a citizen in the country the immigrant has chosen, then their old habits and hatreds eventually fade away with every new generation.
The problem is that diversity and multi-culturalism, especially in Europe, has been pushed to support divide-and-rule politics. It’s much easier to use “diversity” for that purpose than it is to say we want diversity but everyone will be held to the same social and legal standards. In the first case, the “strength” from divide-and-rule diversity is the strength of an increasingly more authoritarian state, not necessarily to the society itself. Of course, authoritarian states always claim that the strength of the state is the same as the strength of the society, even though that seldom seems to be true.
A society may be fine if it contains a diversity of pluralists, but if it invites in a lot of supremacist anti-pluralists then the only real purpose for this would be state divide-and-conquer against the population. This seems even more certain when the pluralists are always the ones blamed for not being pluralistic enough towards the anti-pluralistic supremacist newcomers.
Racism just means I value my race, believe I have a right to exist and have my race continue.
The qualities and characteristics present is a racial group, including whites such as my own, is unique and valuable.
Those qualities cannot be replicated in just any racial group and I wish to keep them.
To deny me that is White Genocide. A crime.
Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-white.
More brilliance from Pat Condell .His best clip ever .Telling it like it is !https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8P90SAROKA&list=PL2btm0xUeyHpN6g0BmcHrka6hXxUcNGcL
Excellent post, MC, as usual. I’m aware of some of the history of your Brit/Jewish heritage, your service in the UK military, and the antisemitism suffered by your daughters (if I recall correctly?) which played a part in your decision to relocate to Israel (though wondering why you’d place yourself, and your family (?) in the front line in Sderot- I understand Tel Aviv, for example, is less fraught).
More to the point of your article, I would suggest that people’s attitude to those who are “different” is not only intrinsic, but also learned (perhaps like the nature/nurture argument). I know this point is anecdotal, but my parents were white, north of England folk, with a dash of Scots, both from nonconformist backgrounds (Methodist/Quaker/Presbyterian, if you’re interested); my ancestors were likely early campaigners agaist slavery, but I take no credit for this, any more than others should take blame for their ancestors’ part in that vile trade.
More relevantly, I was brought up to believe that if someone was “different” (eg black, Jewish), this made them interesting, not “inferior” or to be despised (though Catholics were a bit suspect!- sorry, Dymphna). We humans, flawed as we are, have the intelligence and insight to take people as we find them, and “race” is far less important than outlook, which is coloured (no pun intended) by upbringing and indoctrination. What race, as they say, is Islam?